Most of the country votes in primaries, that are just like general elections. People cast their votes, those votes are tallied, and, in the absence of skulduggery, the results reflect the divisions in the electorate. In some states, with winner-take-all, the leading candidate receives all the delegates. In others, those delegates are divided proportionally according to the vote. In either case, each person votes once, the die is cast, and the delegates are selected according to the predetermined rules.
Those of us in "caucus-states" have a different experience, and the final outcome may not reflect how the electorate is divided. In the Democratic caucuses, after signing in at the precinct meeting, there are speeches allowed for each of the candidates. Following that, each person "votes" for the first time. Often, you go to a part of the room where voters for your candidate are congregating.
After that first vote is tallied, candidates who receive less than 15% of the total are eliminated, and voters for that candidate are allowed to choose among those who remain. Moreover, anyone is allowed to change their allegiance. This continues until all candidates have more than 15% of the vote, and then the delegates are assigned on a prorata basis.
In the pre-cellphone era, most of those decisions were made spontaneously by the precinct-goers themselves. Post-cellphone, central campaign headquarters can urge their followers to vote on the second and subsequent ballots to maximize the outcome for their candidate.
Enough with the dry explanations. Let us see how this may work.
The conventional wisdom is that if Hillary wins IA, NH is hers, South Carolina African-Americans split between her and Obama, and then the big states will be hers. Inevitability will have been confirmed.
Right now, Hillary leads barely in IA, and the momentum seems to be with Obama. Edwards has dealt his nomination ambitions a blow by taking public financing and thus limiting his expenditure allowances in the big states. Richardson has moved up the polls in both IA and NH.
If any two of those three combined votes in round 2, that combination would win handily. If all three combined, Hillary would be swamped in IA. But, who would give the other the boost, because it is not just defeating Hillary that will have downstream implications, but whomever of the other 3 were slingshotted to New Hampshire would be the key challenger? Obama's argument would be that he is the only one with the money to make it a race. Richardson's argument would be that he has the experience and concrete accomplishments to make the case. Edwards' argument would be that he has run a national campaign before.
There is another scenario for Democrats. Clearly, Edwards would never be on a Hillary ticket, not only because of the animosity but also because he did not carry his home state in '04, and thus is unlikely to add to the ticket. Obama might be, in the same way that John Kennedy chose his main rival, Lyndon Johnson, who had said unkind things about Kennedy during the primary campaign (albeit before the era of the internet and YouTube). But, Hillary's glares do not suggest that she will forgive Obama as easily as she did Bill, whereas Kennedy responded to Johnson's gibes with humor. Moreover, it is not clear that Obama would help a Hillary ticket. Neither would Dodd or Biden whose states will be in the Democratic column no matter who is the nominee.
Richardson is a different story. The West is prime territory for the Dems to add to the Kerry states, and Richardson hails from New Mexico where he enjoys a 70% approval rating that includes 40% of Republicans. Unlike the others, he has actually solved foreign crises for the US. He has been nominated 5 times for the Nobel Prize, was the former Energy Secretary where he initiated energy saving policies and, on his own volition, provided several billion in injury compensation for radiation workers who had tried for 50 years to get it. He was also UN Ambassador heavily involved in MidEast matters. As Governor of New Mexico, he has been very creative in growing the economy (from 48th in the nation to 6th in job growth), improving education and, and, and, cutting taxes while balancing the budget. He is also the only Democrat the NRA likes. That is why Republicans leaders say privately that it is game-over for them if Richardson gets the nomination
Thus, Richardson, who is now fourth, could be the one who holds all the cards to victory in IA because Obama would not want to empower Edwards and conversely. Hillary or Obama or Edwards could add their votes to his, providing him the victory to avoid any of the others getting it, and thus everyone would proceed to NV and NH in a 4-way race with no one clearly being able to run-the-table. Or, conversely, Richardson could put Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards over the top in IA.
The Republicans hold their caucuses differently, and, never having been to one, I may have this slightly wrong. But, so far as I understand it, caucus-goers have one vote, the delegates are selected, and that vote is reported. The horsetrading may then take place among the delegates. Since Giuliani, Thompson and McCain have an interest in preventing a Romney victory, and since Huckabee is so close to Romney in the IA polls, but not likely to be big threat in subsequent primaries, they might tell their supporters to vote for Huckabee, let Huckabee trounce Romney, and thus prevent Romney from running-the-table.
Caucus night strategy could decide this election. Just one plea---NO SMOKING ALLOWED.
Loading comments…
Posted November 16, 2007 | 10:44 AM (EST)